Grumpier old man or objectionable object

From: Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG <Bernuetz.Oliver_at_cbsc.ic.gc.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:14:59 -0400


Nick Brooke (that uppity youngster) in response to something I said:

>Huzzah! If you're not in favour of demonstrably correct myth, then
>(within Glorantha) there's no way for two cultures with differing
>myth-systems to prove which of them is "right" and which is "wrong"
>through pure HeroQuesting, Divination or navel-examination.
>They have to take actual (historically-noticeable) action against
>one another, like conquering, or compromising, or declaring each other
> heretical, or synthesising, or expanding to absorb the other belief.

I must not be explaining myself very well. Obviously you can't prove myths right or wrong. They can't be right or wrong. Even in the example Nick uses the culture that lost wasn't wrong it just lost. Belief is moral and value neutral (I mean it's neither good or bad nor right or wrong).

>It certainly seems to be one of the design themes of Glorantha that some
>Ultimate Truths (or Meta-Theories) are best left unknown: we can thrash
>around inventing (or discovering, or deducing) our own "Great Truths of
>Glorantha" based on the information we all share, and if they're
>particularly entertaining, insightful or convenient, they'll gradually
>catch on.

Agreed.

>> Just because the "truth" of a matter is unknowable to Gloranthans
>> doesn't mean I and others don't want to know.

>I understand and sympathise. But it does seem to be a reductionist
>exercise: as soon as you define and publish "The Truth", people will
>ignore the "false" myths of the Pamaltelans, the Yelmalions, the Lunars,
>the Orlevings... when these are as worthy of exploration as any others.

But there aren't any "truths" as they apply to cultures. As far as happy little roleplayers go the situation will remain the same. The same goes for GMs. If I'm playing a Lunar all I need to know is what a Lunar knows. I just think that a GM's confusion about cultures (if any exists) and their beliefs might be alleviated by knowing some objectives.

I'm prepared to drop this whole line of argument and agree to disagree as we (meaning the objectivists) seem to be bringing Mr. Laurie close to a state of apoplexy and I don't want his death on my conscience.

<that was a joke>

The world as "we" see it is now officially subjective. If anyone wants any objectivity that's their business and they should keep their dirty little objective
cravings to themselves. Shame on us.

Have a nice weekend,

Oliver D. Bernuetz
bernuetz.oliver_at_cbsc.ic.gc.ca


Powered by hypermail